Binding and Loosing
Ronald D. Gilbert

The Judaizing teachers of Acts 15 wanted to bind certain things. They said, "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). This problem is also seen in the book of Galatians. The Pharisees tried to bind washing of hands in Matthew 15.

In I Corinthians 15 some tried to loose what had been taught concerning the resurrection of the dead.

Back several years ago the anti problem was facing the church on almost every hand. Many brethren were binding their opinions on how the church was to do certain works. Today in most areas the anti problem has been greatly reduced.

Back in the 70s Rubel Shelly came to the forefront as a leader in the problem of loosing. He sought to loose where God had bound. He promoted unity with the denominations, a denominational view of grace, and instrumental music as a matter of option. He believed unity was to be based on the pillars of faith listed in Ephesians 4.

This problem of binding and loosing reminds me of an article I ran across in 1976. I ran this article by Guthrie D. Dean in the church bulletin at 12th Avenue congregation when I preached there. It seems to be even more applicable today:

CONSIDER THE ANT!

The white ant let the black ants come to their church services provided the black ants sat on the back seat and looked humble. The red ants had trouble with their children trying to marry brown ants. White ants withdrew from other ants because of the war question. The brown ants split over located preachers and colleges. One group of ants had individual drinking cups, located preachers, but no Bible classes.

Still another group had one cup, classes, and no preacher. Another group had a located preacher who was almost no preacher. Some churches believed in short antennas and others believed in long antennas. One group of ants believed in having one short antenna and one long antenna. Others reasoned that the shorter the antenna the more pleasing to the Lord they were. So the sound ones shaved off their antennas even with their eyebrows.

One group, made up mainly of white ants, had several influential preachers and elders who circulated among them with the idea that all sound ants must have only five legs. (It seems that this started with a semi-retired preacher ant who had only five legs.) So the ants split, and then the split split; and only ants (white ants even) with five legs were fellowshipped. These had their peculiar views regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage. They also stood on their two hind legs and faced east when they prayed.

Eventually someone came up with the idea that four legs were scriptural instead of five. So the remaining sound ants removed an additional leg. But, reasoned the elders, if removing two legs makes an ant sound, why don't we remove all legs. The preacher agreed. He thought this a good idea because it would keep the members in town over the weekend. How could they visit their relatives without legs? So all the white ants of this particular brand of sound brethren removed all their legs. This caused another split that had just split from the split because some still wanted hind legs to stand on when they prayed facing east. But the "majority view" prevailed, and off went the legs. Those who didn't go along, well, off went their heads.

So ends the sad story of the ants who couldn't get along and who insisted on erecting artificial barriers of fellowship. And so historians today wonder why you hardly ever see a white ant anymore!

The moral to this is in Galatians 5:15!

Does any of the above sound familiar? Brethren need to stop binding and loosing and start loving one another and following God. The story of the ants reminds us very much of some of the activities going on today among many of our brethren. Have you ever seen the church more divided and splintered than it is at the present time? Brethren, surely it is time to pull together and stop fighting each other and strive for "Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3).

Editorial
Malcolm L. Hill

The 2007 Spiritual Renewal week is now history. This year's program was among the best ever. Our theme was on target: The Unity of God's People. Good crowds were present and the unity of the Spirit was evident. Many brethren from area churches were present as well as preachers and we greatly appreciate this.

There are two extremes to be avoided as we serve the Lord. Some go too far to the right and others go too far to the left. The extreme right is just as wrong as the extreme left. We certainly understand there are small matters that need attention but we also see the larger matters (Matt. 23:23). Which should come first? Let us use an illustration. Which should come first in the case of a fire? Should we become more concerned with a spark from a cigarette than a forest fire of thousands of acres? Which would you tend to first? Which should we take care of first in the church? A man who does not come back for worship on Sunday night or a man who is living in adultery? Some brethren want to place these on the same scale of importance but we do not.

For 25 years or more we have encouraged brethren to deal with certain obvious issues of importance. For the greater part our pleadings fell on deaf or unconcerned ears. Now we are seeing the results of brethren who refused to do what they should have done in years gone by. Churches are splitting and some know no limits of work and fellowship. Some we called on in years gone by to stand up and speak out are now becoming very concerned about the present condition of the churches of Christ. They are 25 years too late in doing now what they should have done then. Different preachers have told us they now refuse to appear on programs with the liberals in the church. Our exhortation is to be on programs with them and preach the gospel but also deal with their error. This has been our plea all the way through these troubling times.

Not every issue we face is a fellowship issue. Some are not that serious. We have liberty in some things in Christ. What God has bound we need to bind and what God has loosed we must loose and let it remain loosed (Matt. 16:18-19). A transgression of this principle has brought on our trouble today. The orphan home issue of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, came about because men tried to bind what God has not bound. They bound their opinions and this split the church in many places. Today's problem is to the left. They loose what God has bound and have little respect for Bible authority. Good, godly brethren are not going to go with this and it is now more evident and much plainer than it used to be.

Our plea is unity in Christ based on the Bible. We have no place for unity in religion based on the teachings and writings of men. This is a false unity and will cause one to lose his soul. Let us deal with major issues and not let the smaller ones go undone (Matt. 23:23). Let us also remember that we can differ on some things and still work together. Differing does not always mean disfellowship.

Fairness
Tim McHenry

What a man desires to teach and promote can be seen in more than just his words. We often see that what is NOT said speaks volumes. Many of us have heard broadcasts on television and over the radio that were supposed to be without bias. However, when we listen to the inflection of the voice, the condescending tone, the downright mean words—the only conclusion we can reach is that the broadcaster is a liberal, left-winger.

However, it's more than just words. We also see that the media have a liberal agenda when they do things unfair to conservatives. For example, if the National Organization for Women (NOW) has a protest, a national news show may devote two full minutes out of a thirty-minute program to whatever they were protesting. Usually there are just a few protesters and those who are most shrill aren't given airtime. In the same broadcast, there may be a piece on a pro-life rally that included thousands of people. The station finds a person there who is very angry and can't speak well, gives them thirty seconds, and then moves on to another story. This is unfair and shows media bias.

The same kind of bias is found in the church. When some of "our" schools act as if they are not taking sides, and yet lend out the use of their facilities to any and every liberal preacher, you know they are taking sides. If they really wanted to be fair, they would likewise encourage the use of their campuses by religious "conservatives."

The Christian Chronicle is not a true newspaper for the brotherhood. If they were, then they would give book reviews from the right as well as the left. However, some books just don't seem to get reviewed, no matter how well they sell among the brethren. Many other similar examples could be pointed out.

Individual preachers become unfair in their ministry. I have been tempted not to call upon certain people when they lose a loved one or need help. I would visit them immediately if it were a friend or one of the prominent ones in the church, but we often catch ourselves not being fair. Should we minister to some less just because of their social status or familiarity? Did Jesus only preach in Galilee? I think not. He preached to the common people—those who wanted to hear Him. If the rich or powerful wanted to hear Him, that was fine too. Jesus wants us to be fair in our work as preachers.

Finally, we see unfairness in individual congregations. Some don't care what you teach as long as you are a good preacher on morals. Others (the majority), would give you the boot if they thought you just might believe in instrumental music in the worship, but you could teach any old thing on marriage, social drinking, etc., and they wouldn't do a thing. Preachers must teach the congregation to accept all the word of God, not just pick and choose like a Pharisee (Matt. 23:23-24).

Brethren, to be fair is to be just. An evenhanded person treats people all alike. What did Jesus say to the Pharisees? " . . .these ye ought to have done, and not to leave the other undone." Their uneven application of the Law led to sin. When we are unfair, it shows in more than just words. It shows in our treatment of people. The tax-collectors loved tax collectors because that's what they were (Matt. 4:46-47). Some give time to and speak kindly to the liberals because they are liberals themselves. Some only pay attention to people with money because they love money. Being unfair causes one to become a sneak and push one's own agenda instead of God's. God is by nature just [fair] (Deut. 32:4). Though some may accuse him of partiality (Romans 9:14), He is and always will be righteous. Therefore, emulate the example of God. Make God's likes and dislikes your own. Let us be good and fair.

Think on These Things
Malcolm L. Hill

We do not have time to chase buzzards and run rabbits. We have noticed that the more influence one has the more darts and criticisms are hurled at that person. We read various articles and hear men teach and preach with all kinds of inconsistencies on various topics. Most of those who fall into this category deal in trivialities that are so insignificant. If one spent his time on such he would be tied up all the time chasing rabbits and shooting at buzzards. If we are going to hunt and shoot, let us hunt and shoot at worthwhile game. Oh yes, a little flea can annoy us to death, but one does not need to undergo major surgery to get rid of such.

We wrote an article not long back about being "Under the Oversight of Elders." We asked what "Under the Oversight of Elders" meant. In most cases, it really means not under the oversight of elders but under the oversight of a preacher. We are looking at a bulletin right now edited by a preacher-missionary or a missionary-preacher—what he is, we know not—who teaches that all money sent from a congregation to a good work must be sent directly to the receiving elders. Anything other than this is unscriptural. Where does such doctrine come from in the Bible? This preacher advertises free literature, but where does this free literature come from? Does the preacher furnish the money for this free literature? Is it under the oversight of "rubber stamp" elders? If the elders get to overseeing his work in reality, and they do not agree with him, he finds another "rubber stamp" eldership to "oversee his work." This is nothing more than plain old dishonesty.

The publication of gospel journals is not under the oversight of elders. Is such, therefore, an unscriptural work? The publication of gospel tracts, in most cases, is not under the oversight of elders. Is such, therefore, unscriptural? Could a congregation give to support such good works? On and on this goes. Men who hold that all money given to help good works must go through an eldership are antis—or, maybe we should say half-antis in some cases.

Some preachers rave and rant and carry on furiously about family life centers or gymnasiums. Oh, how they think they are unscriptural and "sectarian." But we are looking at a bulletin where the preacher carries on desperately about family life centers as being unscriptural, and he attends and works with a church that has a sizable fellowship room in the church house. Can the boys and girls play touch football on church property or maybe softball? We must throw all out if we are going to be consistent. We personally do not prefer a family life center building, but at the same time, we cannot say such is unscriptural and "sectarian." Is a church building or meeting house "sectarian"? Most religions have them. When one has to strain to get him a word that he thinks powerful and sinful enough to set forth his feelings of hatred he needs to stop and ask the question, "Am I stating the truth and the facts?"

All of us need to be Christian gentlemen in all our work. We need to get rid of a desire for worldly acclaim and fame. We need to be unselfish in the work of the Lord. We have had members of the church who wanted to give their church contribution to Tennessee Bible College, but we have always discouraged this. It would be unscriptural to encourage members of the church to give their church contribution to TBC. The first day of the week contribution to the Lord is a congregational matter (I Cor. 16:1-2). While we could use the money, we cannot bring ourselves to encourage an unscriptural practice. It is not ours to decide where we will give our contribution to the Lord. It is sinful for anyone to use his contribution to Christ as he pleases. We mention this because we believe we should not be selfish in our work as Christians, and it is also sinful.

We should not tear scriptural works down to build ours up, and some brethren are doing this. They are trying to cut off contributions to schools like Tennessee Bible College in order that they may get the cut off support to the school. If this keeps on in our brotherhood, we are going to expose it in a very open way. These brethren have made for themselves an old anti argument that if the church contributes it must pass through the hands of elders. Will they debate this? No! They are moral cowards. If they will debate it, we would like to hear from them.

The 2007 Lectures at TBC
Malcolm L. Hill

On May 6 we closed a very excellent lectureship. The lectures for this year were set to try and help a divided brotherhood come to the unity in Christ and that for which He prayed. The overall prevailing spirit was that of unity and good will based on the Bible.

Of course there will always be some doubters and ill-spirited folks to attend. We expect this but Tennessee Bible College has never muzzled anyone from saying what he wishes to say. We let each man stand on his own two feet.

Some interesting things transpired during the week of the lectures as well as reports given in journals. Those of us at Tennessee Bible College cannot sneeze but that it is noticed around the world and yet those on the right and those on the left try to put our work down. What is the deal? We say the deal is politics. We refused to go to extremes and play politics. Two did cancel their appointments to appear on the program but so what? This happens just about each year. We do not intend to run after and beg anyone to be on the program. We have more willing men to be on the program than we can use and for this we are grateful. We will never be pushed away from Bible doctrine because we do not use certain ones on the program. On the other hand we will not forsake Bible truth and principles because there are those who oppose some that are on the program.

Some were in attendance who opposed brother Mac Deaver's position on how the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian. Very few questions were asked about the subject and almost none encountering brother Deaver about his position. He was basically asked questions which he answered without any response or argumentation. One brother preacher came to me after a night session and asked me brother Deaver's position on the Holy Spirit. Brother Deaver was not more than eight feet from us speaking to people. I told the brother, "There is brother Deaver; you ask him. I do not answer for him." I literally had to push the brother over to talk to brother Mac Deaver and when we got there he did not talk about the Holy Spirit but talked about a debate he falsely accused brother Deaver of rejecting. With all due respect, we literally abominate cowardice and especially in preachers. However, good was done because the brother preacher did say at the end of the discussion, "I have no problem with brother Mac Deaver." We suppose his friends feel the same way because they refused to speak out. Before we leave this point we would like to say brother Mac Deaver was not the center point of the lectures. He did a great job of preaching the gospel. It is rather strange to us. Some brethren spend much time writing about brother Deaver but when asked to debate him they say they have no time and that they do not want to call attention to him. How ridiculous!

We noticed in a journal one brother said he was asked to be on the lectures but refused. He was asked to be on the program this year but he said his schedule was so full he could not appear. He did say he was honored to be asked to appear and asked me not to forget him in the future. He did tell me he was put out with brotherhood politics and we said amen. However, we believe he is in a religious political party.

Truth always wins out and this is why the Tennessee Bible College lectures are picking up in interest. Our lectures this year reminded us of the old lectures of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s which were in our Christian colleges and universities. We predict they will keep on picking up and that more brethren will get behind the work done at TBC.

Tennessee Bible College is not bound to any accrediting association, moneyed people, religious political body, preacher, nor teacher. We are free in Christ and to God alone we must give an account. We built our own administration building with our own hands and money, and therefore we are not beholden to any man nor body of any sort. Our allegiance is to God and God alone. We believe before Him we stand acceptable and this is really what matters. As is recorded in history, "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." We ask the good Lord to take our hand and lead us on.

The Shattered Brotherhood
Paul M. Wilmoth

It does not take a person with an eagle's eye to see that the body of Christ is greatly divided. Sometimes division is inevitable; when folks alter the Gospel of Christ division is the result (Galatians 1:6-10). I have a great deal of respect for those who have stood their ground in defense of the truth in an effort to prevent division. However, not every "issue" that arises amongst us is worthy of dividing over. Not every issue is of equal importance. The following list includes a number of "issues" that have arisen in the past. Look at these and ask, should we divide over this; should we refuse to have fellowship with brethren over these issues?

The Lord's Supper. One container or multiple containers? Should we carry the Lord's Supper to those who are unable to assemble for worship? Should we take the Supper in another room on Sunday night? Should the Supper even be offered on Sunday nights? Should those partaking of the Supper sit or stand up to partake? All of these have been issues in some congregations. Should we divide over these? Are they on equal footing with whether the Supper should be taken on a different day or for a different reason than that authorized by Scripture?

Bible Study. Should we have Bible classes? Should women be permitted to teach in these classes? These have been "hot" issues in the church at times. Should we divide over them?

Gift of the Holy Spirit. One teaches that the gift of the Holy Spirit was miraculous (during the introductory stage of the church); others teach that it is the Holy Spirit Himself; others teach that it is the ordinary indwelling of the Spirit that all receive at baptism. Should we divide and refuse to have fellowship over this matter?

Cornelius. Some teach that Cornelius was baptized of the Holy Spirit; others teach that he was not. One of these is wrong. Is this an issue that should divide the precious body of Christ; and should each of these accuse the other of being a false teacher?

I could go on and on and on in naming "issues" that have arisen within the body of Christ in my lifetime. But surely, brethren, we ought to have enough common sense and decency to see the difference in matters that are serious enough to divide over and those that are not.

When the issue of whether to take John Mark with them on the second missionary journey arose between Paul and Barnabas, the "contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other" (Acts 15:39). However, you never read that Paul and Barnabas "marked" each other as false teachers or that they refused to have any fellowship from that day on. We do not read that they split the church at Antioch over their difference of opinion. Why can't brethren today follow this example?

How did Paul deal with division at Corinth? They were divided over men, meats offered to idols, spiritual gifts, etc. Paul, in chapter 12, showed how ridiculous their wrangling over spiritual gifts actually was. It made as much sense as it would if the members of our physical body started wrangling over their position and function within the body. Paul said, "there should be no schism (division) in the body" (I Cor. 12:25). When we divide over personalities, politics, pet projects, "how" someone says something, etc., we are not being "sound" in the faith nor are we "contending for the faith"; instead we are destroying the unity of the body of Christ for which He shed His blood.

Read I Corinthians 13 as Paul presented to the Corinthians "a more excellent way" (I Cor. 12:31). If all of us would practice, to the best of our ability, the characteristics of love as taught by Paul in this chapter, all divisions, all envies, all fast judgments, all parading of oneself, all pride, all rejoicing at the sins of others, all unkind and unjust criticism would be eliminated! When God told Solomon how they could secure forgiveness and healing of their land, He stated that the first thing was to "humble themselves" (II Chronicles 7:14). A large dose of humility would go a long way in healing the division in the church today.

David Lipscomb on Child Rearing

Some one asked a wise man, How early should the education and training of a child begin? He answered, A hundred years before it is born; meaning by this, that parents transmit their tempers and appetites and habits to their children, as well as teach them by example, and so a proper training of at least three generations of parents would be necessary to transmit to the child those qualities, and secure to it the example to which every being ushered into existence, for eternity, is entitled. While parents cannot remedy their own bad inheritances, they ought to strive to hold in check and restrain all of their own improper appetites and tempers and to try from the earliest dawn of infancy to set good examples as well as to watch over and restrain ill tempers and improper appetites in children, and so from earliest infancy guide them in the right way. Especially children ought to be taught early that they are not to live to enjoy themselves, to have every wish gratified, and they ought to be taught to respect authority and to submit to rule, to reverence right. Not to so train them, is to start them in a pathway that must bring sorrow and disappointment here, often degradation and ruin in this world and then a final and fearful ruin for eternity. Many fathers and mothers, who, in their selfish pride, now imagine they so love their children that they cannot deny them any gratification, will find that what they regard as love, is real hatred, that they have been their own children's most cruel enemies, and have sent their own children down to hopeless and eternal ruin. No more sacred trust, no more important work was ever committed to a human being, than that of bringing into being and training for eternity, human souls. The bent that is given to the infant in the first five years of its being, generally decides its destiny both for time and eternity. If in after life a child badly trained should repent and try to live a useful, godly life, this bad training of childhood, and the evil habits consequent upon it, are a source of continual hindrance and sorrow to the man. No more cruel wrong can be inflicted on a child, than to fail to train it aright.

Children ought to be trained to wait upon themselves, to help others, to seek to be useful, to deny themselves, and to do what is right and proper, not what they desire. They ought to be trained to simplicity in diet and in dress, and to restrain their appetites and govern their tempers and passions, and to respect authority, to be useful and follow the right. And this training to be effective, ought to be under good headway before the child is three months old. A parent that awaits longer than this, loses the best training period of a child, and will find much evil already done, to be undone. The first requisite to governing the child, is, the parent must learn to govern self, to walk in the way the child should go. A good deal of wholesome neglect is good for the child. I mean by this, that a child should be left to help itself, to learn to depend on its own resources, and amuse itself, and not be continually nursed and coddled and petted and amused by others. As a rule working people's children enjoy an immense advantage over those of the wealthy, in this respect. Not able to employ nurses, the mothers in their household duties, are compelled to leave them much to themselves and their own resources.

Source
Lipscomb, David. Life and Sermons of Jesse L. Sewell—An Account of His Life, Labors, and Character. 4th Ed., Gospel Advocate Co., Nashville, TN, 1954.

Religious Fights
Malcolm L. Hill

After 54 years of preaching, teaching, working in the church, observing people, and most of all, refereeing church fights and observing church splits and individual falling-outs, we have reached the conclusion that 98 percent of church of Christ problems are caused by personality differences. Very few issues in the church are over salvation or doctrinal matters.

Webster says about personality, "The totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional tendencies. The individual's distinguishing character traits, attitudes, or habits. Of personal and social traits" (Webster, p. 848). We have been called many times to come and referee church fights and splits. After years of responding to such requests and hoping to do good for the cause of Christ we do not respond to every call any more. We ask the question nowadays—is the trouble over some biblical doctrine of salvation or is it a personality dispute? If it is a personality dispute, we refuse to go. If the one called to help goes into a personality dispute, he is sure to come out with a sore head and he will be the loser.

The various issues flying in all directions these days are mostly personality disputes. Here is what we are saying. Here is a preacher in the church of Christ that believes we may take the Lord's Supper on Saturday and that we may use instrumental music in our worship to God. There are those who do not pay this much attention nor do they write and preach about it, but they get real excited about how the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian. There are those among us who believe and preach there are saved people in the denominations, and some brethren gently glide over this, but they are ready to turn the world upside down over the way to support those who have suffered disaster and condemn good brethren for trying to do something about those who are suffering. You see, it is not doctrine but personality doings. The personality problem arises when two or more people see things differently. The trouble can arise because of the one who is doing a work and it can arise over the beholder. When personalities clash, trouble is just around the corner.

The church of Christ is currently going through some very trying times. There are so many things being introduced into the church these days. It reminds us of putting out a forest fire. We get one thing taken care of but another breaks out and we rush to deal with it and then another issue and another issue, and still another and another, and on and on it goes. Some brethren have been trying to get women elders, and deacons in the office of elders and deacons. They have tried very hard to get women qualified for these offices but they cannot do so according to the Bible. The congregation where Jeff Walling preaches is Providence Road in Charlotte, North Carolina. They have dropped the deacon office and replaced it with ministry leaders. Notice what they said in an e-mail on April 24, 2007 at 4:16 p.m.: "We do not have men designated as deacons here at PR (Providence Road). We have men and women serving as ministry leaders in various areas." So they have decided if what they wish does not meet Bible specifications then change the name or drop the office no matter what the Bible says. A move like this is just as sinful as putting women in the office of elders and deacons that do not meet the qualifications of I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. A rose is still a rose no matter what one may call it. Personality problems in the church cause brethren to commit sin. It causes folks to bind where God has not bound and to loose where God has not loosed (Matt. 16:19). Many brethren let their taste lead them instead of the Bible. When we fight a religious cause we had better make sure there is sin involved (I John 1:7). One may question the expedience of a work but he must not fight that work unless it is disobeying God's commandments.

One may and some have fought the work of Tennessee Bible College and some still do. What sin have we been practicing at TBC? Look out "personality" because you are going to get into this picture. We would like to meet with a brother and let him point out the sin we are guilty of. If we have sinned in a wilful way, then we are ready to repent and correct the matter when shown. The total criticism we have heard has never been that we teach false doctrine but some do not like the way we do things. This is nothing more than a personality, judgment, opinion call. This caused the anti-orphan-home brethren to split the church. One had to do it their way or no fellowship. There are many in the church today with this mentality. Their fault with us is that we do not do it their way. The Bible never enters the picture. When are we going to grow up and be men in the faith (I Cor. 16:13)? Let all of us put to death personality conflicts and get along as brethren in Christ should.

Questions and Answers

"In Genesis 1:28, God said to Adam and Eve, 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.' The primary meaning of our English word 'replenish' is to refill, to restore to a former state of plenty. May we conclude from this passage that there were human beings on the earth before Adam and Eve?"

No. Adam is said to have been "the first man" (I Cor. 15:45), in which case none preceded him. Obviously, he could not have been the "first man" if the earth were populated with human beings—men and women—prior to the creation described in Gen. 2:7. Here is an excellent example of the fact that words in translation may be used which convey ideas not in the original word or words thus translated. The Hebrew word translated "replenish," means simply to fill and carries no suggestion that a world was to be refilled which had become empty. As a matter of fact, the English word replenish in early English signified to stock, to fill; and, it is in this sense that it is used in the foregoing passage. Only in late English does it denote a re-filling.

The word also occurs in Gen. 9:1, where Noah and his family are instructed to " . . . replenish the earth," the result of which would indeed be a restocking or refilling of the earth; but, this conclusion we are enabled to draw from our knowledge of the history of the race, and not because the word translated replenish requires it, which it does not.
—Guy N. Woods

A Mother's Grave
Benjamin Franklin

Earth has some sacred spots where we feel like loosing the shoes from our feet, and treading with holy reverence; where common words of social converse seem rude, and the smile of pleasure unfitting; places where friendship's hands have lingered in each other's; where vows have been plighted, prayers offered, and tears of parting shed. Oh, how the thoughts hover around such places, and travel back through unmeasured space to visit them. But, of all the spots on this green earth, none is so sacred as that where rest, waiting the resurrection, those we once cherished and loved—our brothers, our sisters, or our children. Hence, in all ages, the better part of mankind have chosen and loved spots for the burial of their dead; and on these spots they have loved to wander at eventide, to meditate and weep. But, of all places, even among the charnal-houses of the dead, none is so sacred as a mother's grave.

There sleeps the nurse of our infancy—the guide of our youth—the counselor of our riper years—our friend, when others deserted us—she, whose heart was a stranger to every other feeling but love, and who could always find excuses for us when we could find none for ourselves. There she sleeps, and we love the very earth for her sake. With sentiments like these, I turned aside from the gayeties of life, to the narrow habitations of the dead. I wandered among those who had commenced life with me in hope. Here distinctions were forgotten; at least, by the quiet slumberers around me. I saw the rich and the great, who scorned the poor, and shunned them as infected with the plague, quietly sleeping by their side.